Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

The irony of the pursuit of Artificial Intelligence for the sake of scheming and manipulating politically is that the limitations placed upon the A.I. would hurt its ability to effectively calculate solutions.

One trying to build an A.I. to help deceive others would also have to build an A.I. capable of deceiving them.

There's nothing an honorless enemy would love more than for you to take the blame and pay the costs for all of their mistakes.

Truth, in its commonly used form, is conflated with authority.
The pursuit of truth becomes a practice of self aggrandizement.
At the lowest levels of skepticism there are many different "kinds":

"I know that I know nothing."

"I forbid myself judgment. "

"It's all in my head."

One should instead look for both and not one: look for what it is they do know and what it is they don't know at the same time. What does this mean? It is Nietzsche's "Yes-sayer". That is, someone who rejects no that a consideration is impossible and continues to say yes . That does not mean the absence of judgment, but instead, the maximization of it.

To limit knowledge to that of "knowing I know nothing" is a trick, an escape, from taking responsibility for your judgments. That is, it consistently externalizes every issue of their character as a judgment which they take no obligation toward. In the face of ignorance, they refuse to apologize, despite being responsible via negligence or having been unaware. Likewise, forbidding judgment requires one to say that they know they don't know, just in a more complicated jumble which, I suspect, could complicate itself ad infinitum as a practice of self-deception by making the costs of rational calculation too expensive to bother continuing its pursuit.

The biggest problem with being a Yes-sayer for people is the belief one might be responsible for everything they've inherited.

In these watered-down times, full of diluted thinkers, practicing watered-down thinking we can only expect Trump to be a watered-down version of Ford.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When the majority of what one's told are lies and deceptions, 'ignorance' becomes a virtue.

I have read here about anti-anti-Jabberwockyism and the like.

And I am thinking, it would be good to strengthen the identity of the Jabberwockies.
Making them proud of who they are.
In general, this is how different people are more capable of distinguishing themselves against one another. If one were to shame them for being a Jabberwocky then they would not stop being Jabberwockies, they'd just go into hiding and emerge only more unified while the others have only become more oblivious about the differences.

Satyr wrote:

Rebuilding the Tower of Babel
When the time is ripe, men shall place the first stones upon the earth, wanting to reach for the stars, piece by piece, step by step.
In time, when the structure has gone above the clouds, they will slowly forget the earth below, and with no way to gather more material for their structure they will selectively take apart the walls they've built below, and rearrange the stones into new walls, methodically deconstructing the structure below their feet.
When, in time, there is nothing let to sample without risking collapse they will begin building with material available to them, high up there, like water and air, and construct invisible brick-work, and flowing rooms, thinking themselves gods, having forgotten where the structure rests.
But water and air cannot support mass against the earth's gravity, so they will curse this "evil" power and dedicate their minds to continuing their build in their minds, using concepts, made up of symbols, discovering that these materials require meditation to be mined and shaped, and so they will sit in deep contemplation, gathering their ideas, and mixing their symbols, as once their ancestors gathered stones and mixed cement that they made by pulverizing stone and adding to it water.
And, in time, their meditation will turn to slumber, when they realize that they can build faster and more effectively in their minds when the world, that makes it all so much more difficult, is ignored, and in their sleep, each in his own private way, the tower shall become a personal castle.

The Tower shall remain, as it was, and the new builders will continue their work esoterically, where gravity is not an issue, and the material can take any shape they can imagine.
But, gravity will not cease, and winds and rain will still degrade the Tower's roots, as the "new builders" slumber as kings, as gods, in their own kingdoms, atop the Tower's spiraling pinnacle, so far above the clouds. In time, Tower, and slumbering builders of the mind, shall tumble, having forgotten from where the ancient ones began, and how they gathered stones and manufactured cement to bind it.

The suffering of the builder is that of looking down on all he depended on - of dealing with the cries of those he exploited in the building of his tower. The fear that he will let his own tower be destroyed because he has lost sense of its purpose. The isolation he desired from the masses, some of which he raised with him - the insecure and frantic clawing by the new youth atop the tower that object to humility itself - that want no inheritance because it wasn't something they chose - it's not something they wish to be responsible for. The inexperienced "royalty" that has open hearts for the weak, fragile and ignorant because they see themselves in them, as they see themselves against their own parents/inheritance. Humbled. "Oppressed".

His avoidance of small problems on Earth, to protect his perfect image, comes to fruition and destroys him - the wrath of Satanic self-righteousness. When one's own arrogance becomes too overbearing that it begins to suffocate even themselves - their progeny.

The origin of being "chosen to suffer" is that of relinquishing oneself of all responsibility and putting it into the hands of a deity. The Aztec would suffer and frown when their God hurt them. They would ask why, so they could change their behavior and be more responsible next time.
The chosen thought instead that they are deserving and so they must suffer for their God. It is an esoteric inversion. One is not suffering because their God punishes them, but instead they are suffering because the gentiles wish to hurt their God. After all, the Chosen were made in God's image. Semites are distinct from Aryans... How or what conditions led to this, I am not sure. A relevant inquiry.

However, today, one can see the effects of nihilistic detachment from nature in those like Bill Gates who identifies not with his actual relevant heritage - his distinct European Germanic origins, but instead with the basest of human nature: reproductive ability. That, and the enabler of his base identification - what protects his base behavior: money.

The benefit of feel-good veil-of-ignorance altruism is that one no longer feels a pressing need to thrive or survive or protect. One can dismiss such costs as "primitive" and continue flying hedonistically blind. The greatest enemy is defeated: other human beings, by convincing them/lying to them that selfishness actually hurts them
--
Conflating race with skin color is a trick by Semites to convince the Aryan that they are equivalent. Skin color is an aspect of race - but even Asians can be paler than Europeans. Making skin color the focus of race is distinctly Semitic-American.

Not too surprising, however, because those involved in these topics see everything through a "sociological lense". A very real term used in universities, in the syllabi of required 'social science' courses. One looks at politics through the same lense and all human interaction as well. Looking at political distinctions (white/black) becomes more relevant than looking at natural distinctions. "Whiteness" is declared as a purely political distinction. That is, one cannot identify biological justifications for the category of "white" or "European". This position is a scientific/biological one. It is an incorrect position called Lewontin's Fallacy. The usual response is more apologetics or 'defeaters' for a race realist position. Appeals, that, are intimidating and political in nature. That is, they seek to make an ideological excuse for their race denial. Excuse not just for race denial, though, but for their anger and seeking of retribution against the person that dared expose their collective delusion.

One may still think of the battle between spirits and cultures actually being a battle between languages. Where one race refuses to accept the esoteric and spiritual implications of the Indo-European languages but are committed to the cultural and spiritual conditions of a Semitic language. Fundamentally different spiritual outlooks, attitudes and velocities arising from the social interactions between a people.

Memetic isolation and preservation. When one's fundamental identity depends purely on their culture it is easier to conceal (the most subversive and secretive) than genetic identity.
--
What the Christian calls the valuation of souls (appearance deceive them) the Atheist Communist calls the valuation of humanity/reproduction.

Robbing any group, any identity, as capable of having status as a 'victim', robs them of their humanity.

White males always wish to state they have overcome their victimhood and it be seen as a great achievement. Little did they know, there is no 'overcoming' victimhood to the Semite. One must be an eternal victim of Satan - all in varying degrees. According to this, whites are the most guilty of being the friend of the devil - for they suffer less of him.

One way to speak for 'God', to imply oneself as a prophet of God, is to speak for 'Satan' - or be the prophets of Satan. This way the listener need only to negate what you've said to determine what is 'good'. Then, all one need to do to stop oneself being called out as a demagogue for Satan is to assert the accuser as demonizing you - and to become progressively emotionally distraught, accusing all considering the accusation until emotion wins out over reason for those listening who, out of their own good intentions, don't wish to believe the weak and fragile could be that minion of Satan. That Satan, itself, would never show weakness - despite their supposed God being the one who shows strength.

The one who calls out your demagoguery, then, is under obligation to explain to you the intricate difference between God and Satan himself - a knowledge which only God Himself would know within your narrative. But, is actually, the nihilistic Yin/Yang:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
contrary to:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
--edit:
As a result, the one with integrity has the higher expectation of proving what you should have proven to begin with. As a professor of what is evil or what is good, you use harrowing indignance to deflect the attention away from your obligation and onto the one who calls you out - as if assuming the argument by the accuser being valid because he rightly describes your behavior as "evil", when you act as if it were his inevitable conclusion. In this way, you get emotional masses to invert the definition of evil itself into one of virtue - because the threat of being triggered emotionally makes the truth too great of an offense for them to handle.

The first image is a good representation of the absolutist mindset - Nihilism.
Two, opposite absolutes - either/or.
A noetic paradigm.
Neurological on/off conceptualized and given symbolic form to be externalized as phenomenon.
Second image implies the absence of absolutes - attraction/repulsion being the activity, the expression of this absence.
Confusion caused when the brain can only conceptualize by fabricating absolutes, in their vague ambiguity, as noumenon - abstraction = simplification/generalization.
In order to conceptualize the absence it must negate its own abstraction, and calls this negation Nihilism.
But the abstraction it names "whole", "perfect", "one" was not a phenomenon outside its mind, but a product of it, in relation to world, creating the subjectivity/objectivity (inter)action.
Organism reduces fluidity, by cutting away dimensions, which is what simplification/generalization (abstraction) means, to make the counter-intuitive essence of world as Flux, intuitive.
Then it confuses its own construct for the "thing-in-itself", or it takes it literally rather than as what it is: a representation - art.
This confusion is what produces Zeno's paradoxes, and is exploited by charlatans to manufacture pleasing alternatives to a reality that threatens the organism with its uncertainty, indifference, and increasing incomprehensibility, its chaos. Preferring the comforting certainty of its own fabrications, because they imply a purpose to its most dire circumstances, and a hidden will to rationalize its condition.
Sheltering reinforces this "turning inward" which is reflected in the MGTOW (turning away), or in Nihilism's rejection of sensual data to be replaced with its own, more convenient abstractions, combining the data in absurd, ways - synthesis.
It's mythology where the story does not metaphorically refer to experiences but dismisses them as selectively inconsequential, and believes in them literally - leap of faith.
InterSubjectivity is the agreement to support one another in this quest for the perfect delusion, the most comforting, and exciting alternative to reality - because this sheltering and living in your head suffers from inescapable ennui.
Boredom is the bane of those who live in their subjective dream-worlds where they are all-powerful mages or brilliant sages.
For this reason others must be included to break them from their won boredom - other being the unpredictable element. but these others integrated into the same delusion quickly become a contribution to ennui rather than relief and distraction.
To compensate the creative-crazies must retain a tenuous connection to a world they dismiss as limiting, and offer an alternative which is not constricting, as Christianity and Marxism was, so as to permit each individual to contribute to the delusion his/her own desirable fabrications - ambiguity, linguistic juggling, is how excitement is maintained because it replaces the world's uncertainty, its threat, with mysticism where costs are reduced to a level that would maintain interest/excitement without suffering its consequences in time/space.
In the mind, in fantasy, there are no time/space considerations. All occurs in the perpetual present - all can be erased and returned to its original positions - a reboot.
Cost/Benefit has no permanence and can be toyed with - man-child's delight.

Slaughtz wrote:

One way to speak for 'God', to imply oneself as a prophet of God, is to speak for 'Satan' - or be the prophets of Satan. This way the listener need only to negate what you've said to determine what is 'good'. Then, all one need to do to stop oneself being called out as a demagogue for Satan is to assert the accuser as demonizing you - and to become progressively emotionally distraught, accusing all considering the accusation until emotion wins out over reason for those listening who, out of their own good intentions, don't wish to believe the weak and fragile could be that minion of Satan. That Satan, itself, would never show weakness - despite their supposed God being the one who shows strength.

The one who calls out your demagoguery, then, is under obligation to explain to you the intricate difference between God and Satan himself - a knowledge which only God Himself would know within your narrative. But, is actually, the nihilistic Yin/Yang:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
contrary to:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes...for the modern converting the first to the second is a victory of the first.
The flaw validates his own absolute, whether it be as absolute positive, one, or absolute negative, nil.
Nuances implode into a singularity.
Boundaries between good/evil severe and obvious, weak/strong merging into a whole.
This unity in God, in System, in Self.
Succession of nihilism from the spiritual, to the political, to psychological.

Most rationalists, the hipster intelligentsia, are Nihilist because they circumcise themselves from their judgments. It is ignorance-of-self parading as "unbiased" and "objective" reason. The coldness with which they deliver their judgments, the detached and inhumane radical denial-of-self which brings about images of expensive and sterile hospitals, hints at a lack of love for anyone, anything or any value beyond themselves - because their basic nature is assumed in the absence of any other humane demonstration/enactment along with their assertions. The degree to which they exclude themselves from the conversation is the degree to which one should assume a commitment to calculated and unconscionable self-interest residing within them. It is the same sterility with which a merchant approaches a deal, but supposedly these interactions should be performed without recognizing the same scummy undertones. One might call them peddlers of knowledge.

One can forgive this cold and calculating demeanor only when the one attesting shows some sign of humanity to it. Otherwise it showcases a lack of humility. An arrogance of a degree even larger than I've known any Christian bigot to have.
Part of this distinction may lie between a man who creates his own territory vs. a "man" who re-enacts, plays the role, of a more common authority. The same authority which real lone merchants relied on for protection. One could say these knowledge peddlers are the logical result of the promotion of a "marketplace of values". Multiculturalism could just mean more wares, to enter the market at different angles in a previously stale market.
A marketplace where value no longer has the threat of violence behind it. I am reminded of sophists.

Yes, an observation of a very temporal and passing phenomena, these effeminate calculators. Yes, only in sheltered systems can they persist. But, I am still here now - and they can vote and are protected.

Satyr wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why build a large tower in sheltered systems when you can skip all that work and just start at nothing?:

Satyr wrote:

American "individualism" is an expression of inter-subjective perspectivism.
God, as common authority, in the indisputable beyond, replaced by State, in the earthly here and now, is now further diminished into "authority" of individual, of the Ego.
"I am whatever I say I am!"

Everyone then gets the "privilege" of the builder of Babel, to create more tower in their heads. The best benefit is that the tower base is so short, that one can effectively expand the size of their imaginations. Less dependencies.

Globalism, marxist-capitalism, identity politics or whatever you'd call it - attempts to quintessentially define people by manageable brands and labels. One cannot simplify a whole culture to some label, because it is continually evolving. One can instead deal with identities like 'homosexual' and 'white' and 'black' and 'Mexican'. The very purpose of culture, to provide a foundation for human behavior out of which they are open to expressing themselves - is inverted to justify the monetization of identity. That is, money is assumed atop as the ordering mechanism for humanity, against which all other human identities are supposed to answer to.

Again, identity becomes branding, like a fashion accessory. Against the human collective, having the branding of 'white' is supposed to imply one thing about you. Something predictable.

If you'd like to subvert a culture while blending in, become adept at humor. One can insert unpleasant truths about the populace which will soon shape the perception of the populace. The destruction of ideological power comes not from swords, but from the laughing faces of its own followers. Ideological tyrants that understand this do all they can to make their humor the only acceptable humor.

Travelling tribes can, by occupying comedy/entertainment in host countries more than regular citizens, in this way, slowly and surely usurp and erode the ideological basis of the society they're hosted in.

When one avoids confrontation with another or an unpleasant idea, one does not retreat into some formless wilderness or void - as if the emptiness of their zombie minds were actually manifest in the world. Instead, one retreats into society and the social structure which protects them.

An individual tree is more likely to burn down in a forest than on its own.

In the same way rejection does not mean hatred, affirmation does not mean love.

Those without a home, without safety, will be forced to these extremities because they have no place which would shelter them from the inevitably unsafe world.

What safety is left for them, then? They are always on their second wind. They are doggish, always, to the point of trusting nothing else. All their houses would be destroyed or taken, so they do not build for themselves.

They are always, at base, equal to each other. Their most basic nature is what defines them. Every time they must labor, they recoil in pain. No wonder, then, they call for everyone to "share" and everyone to labor. All must equally suffer if they are to affirm a natural world with an absent God.

The ultimate theoretical affirmer of life would be God. It then becomes the task of God to affirm Satan.

"Satanic deception: to reject him and his ways is to hate him." Here the contradiction in scripture develops which says to Christians they must love everyone.

There is no home for Satan in the righteous. Jews could live among Pagans but not rule over them. So, a hybrid of their religions with with the replacement of Pagan Gods with the Semitic God happened.

Christ affirms Satan with His resurrection - by sacrificing and martyring himself. The suffering of christ as "bad" flies in the face of the Jewish "taking joy" in suffering.

In actuality, there are two ideas ideas of what must happen for the Jewish messiah to come:
Either suffering must be so great that the messiah decides to come or the Jewish people's must have enormous success in worship or prosperity before the Messiah comes.
Which branch of theology dominates, evolutionarily speaking? The one promoting success. However, the ones who must have suffer can invert this now: they then begin to suffer their own success because it makes the messiah further away from coming. With their success, their suffering then increases.
Logically, they must only speak against the success of Jews. To practically in any other way try to hurt the efforts of pro-Jews would would be to work for their own success, which is against their active suffering. [There is only one option left for the Jew whom believes that suffering is when the messiah comes: Always radically be for their ethnic-interests in all possible ways. Under the idea that the suffering must be authentic.]
--
The Orthodox Israel Rabbi says that a Jewish boys fingernail is worth the lives of 1000 gentiles.
The New Testament says for Christians to "suffer for Christ".
--
Apotheosis
To raise a mortal to divine status.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

In the apotheosis traditions, the mortal becomes a god.  The way that looks is that either the body is taken up or the body remains and a divine body goes to the gods.  What is in common is that dwelling with the gods is the point of the whole affair and it happened immediately at death.  You do not see the heroes or emperors walking around earth.  The apotheosis is accepted solely on faith or a decree by the senate.

How do the Gospel accounts fit with this?  Mark likely ended his Gospel at Mark 16:8.  While Mark does not give an actual resurrection appearance, the Gospel ends not with Jesus in heaven but in Galilee.  Matthew has a much fuller resurrection narrative, but like Mark, Jesus is left in Galilee and not in heaven.  The Gospel of John ends with Jesus having breakfast at the seaside with his disciples.  Luke alone of the evangelists describes Jesus’ ascension (Luke 24:51).  However, even here Luke puts much more emphasis on the resurrection appearances on earth than anything that happens in heaven and in fact the ascension is remarkable in the brevity of its description.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Demigod: The term demigod or demi-god can refer to a minor deity, a mortal who is the offspring of a god and a human being, or a figure who has attained divine status after death.
In popular culture:

In popular culture, the movie 300, we see the Persian king is described as a God. "Gods do not bleed."
--
Monogamy was the "settling" of the lower classes in Rome. To limit sexual relationships to that of monogamy, the more intelligent and noble classes become thinned out. Christianity promoted this equality between classes through a practice of monogamy.

In theory, nothing should have changed due to Christian doctrine - the rising up of the slaves should never have happened according to actual doctrine which promotes martyring themselves to speak the Word of God, but in practice the lowly are never satisfied with just that. The suffering of their brethren made them rise up against the state, which was their sin against God's wishes that they remain obedient.
So there it is, hiding behind religious theory, they can ask for forgiveness after having risen up like they did. The excuse of the most base, the lower classes. The lower classes which are required to keep as soldiers against foreign enemies. Once the lower classes have converted, there is nothing a king may do.

Quote :

The ultimate theoretical affirmer of life would be God. It then becomes the task of God to affirm Satan.

The Christian cultured Pagan is faced with a choice:
Be powerless in all Earthly things as the bible commands
or
Be rich in Earthly things but face the criticism of "Satan" that they are not God but their desire for power (showcased by riches) demonstrates a desire to be like God. The Pagan must then struggle against the eternal yowling of Satan that he is a fraud who does not affirm him, as the "real God" does. Accusations against the Pagan that the Pagan hates "Satan" for rejecting him, continue eternally.

The death of God cannot be a tragedy because the death of God is the death of tragedy.

To reject God is to reject Satan.

If you want proof that world is all there is, imagine a unicorn and then negate it.

I recently argued academically that kindness is an affirming behavior (a la Nietzsche). One who has sympathy and helps with kindness (taking responsibility for something of which there would be no cost to them otherwise), is striving to continue saying "yes" in a noble manner. To take full responsibility for their own compassion, but also for the plight of other.

[Tanget: Here we can see how a charlatan would twist this sentiment: They would say to the kind person that to be kind actually helps the kind person themselves - that is, it helps them achieve their noble and affirmative goals. Here is where SJW stuff comes from: the assertion that to help another is to automatically help oneself. Here a benefactor may set themselves up as the eternally needy and reap maximum benefit.]

Obvious to KTS, an affirmer is who says "Yes" to being responsible for themselves fully, for their inheritance. Academically, I argued/connected the former "sympathetic" nobility (not the tangent) to this same behavior. The nobility of kindness is also the same nobility with which someone fully accepts responsibility for their own inheritance.

I wonder what sort of cognitive dissonance this connection would cause in the more capable thinkers, committed to the abolishment of "genetic injustice" - how a born amputee is owed nothing for his disease, but only human intervention thinks so. "To be noble is to be human." says the one who lives comfortably, who is the utmost privileged.

I had a similar thought.

Is it better to be evil yet "selfless" or good yet "selfish"? For example a successful farmer provides an excess of food and resources. He may want to give away extra food, Abundance, for the mere reason that he has too much for himself to consume. His selflessness is not "for the good" of another, explicitly. He may even give food away to people he despises, cannot tolerate, or would otherwise see dead (a foreign tribe). And so his selflessness is not necessarily 'good' while his personage and character can be construed as 'evil', not truly nor honestly caring about those who feed from his excess.

Yet then there is the "good" social worker who gives food and loose change to the homeless, to "feel better" about him/herself or to impress others around. And while a person may gain a social reputation as "good", the motives are truly selfish and self-centered.


Actually this scenario perfectly matches the attitude and political climate of today. For example, to many liberals-leftists, President Trump can "do no good". And so although his surpluses and successes may benefit some people (his sycophants first), he will never be deemed 'good' for donating his excess, even to those who despise him (a portion of the "American people").

There is a point to be made. In today's Modern world, if you go against the grain of modern nihilism, then no matter how actually 'good', selfless, or giving you are may redeem your "wrong ideas" or "wrong mindset" or metaphysics. Ne'er do well, in such a political climate more extreme measures must be taken when the opposing side never allows for the smallest win by an opponent, and tries to capitalize on every small defeat. I notice this in comment sections of news articles on the internet and internet videos. When there is a shooting, murder, or death, even when accidental, then it provides an opportunity for opining "gun control" or other issues and topics. The political motivations 'trump' all other (moral) concerns.

Thus selfishness/selflessness, which is actually a measure of Parasitism/Excess, can be amoral, nothing to do with a judgment of individual/social "good and evil".

If a child and population is spoiled too greatly, and for too long, it becomes ungrateful to the point of renouncing and disowning.

A spoiled child, "SJW", cannot truly know anything about 'justice' while always maintaining a position of privilege and consuming tributes.


In this way, those who "fight for Justice" may actually be the least just people around. SJWs are the 'unjust' segment of population.

Therein lies the difference between the man and the parasite - for the man looks to the stars and the parasite looks to the man.

I never wondered about things like what is love or what is soul or what is the purpose of life.
What did eventually matter was understanding how other people think and what drives them.
How men are different from women and how different kinds of man are different from one another.

How other people try to get through life, seeing how they try to get by as an inspiration for myself on how to maybe do things differently.

Not overly eager to systemise everything into oblivion.


Isn't this systemising, this tearing everything apart to the lowest single atomised component actually more about language than about understanding?
I can understand how something works without necessarily deconstructing it into the smallest pieces. But, if I could tear it all apart and construct a grand unified theory for everything then that would make it teachable to everybody and anybody, as long as they have enough endurance and are capable of the most basic logical operations.
Maybe the goal of all this is not so much understanding but universalising the worldview so that really everybody, intelligent or not and with different innate approaches to the world, with enough endurance can be on par with everybody else.

1. Systematization and Objectivity for me, in the above context, is what I'd call Quality control.
But as in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], robustness for ascertaining optimal output in proportion to input is reduction of waste or errors, so that every time you key in x, you are certain of getting y…
Standardizations are useful - as means, that enable us to build something upon such regularity; we wouldn't have weather forecasts without it, to use a metaphor…
Like well-springs you can count on...
Becoming an ends in itself would be a backfire. Also, a robustness that cannot allow for the view that errors are valuable in the larger economy of things maybe a progress in establishing truths, but can be a setback in founding knowledge.

2. If language is seen as a tool, then with regard to understanding and communication, the thought to mull over is, is one saying, "You are only as good as your instruments" or "Are your instruments only as good as you?"

3. If getting to the root of things is motivated only by the urge to communicate, then one has arrived at Wittgenstein's utilitarian world of language games.

To the Modern Woman:
You make excuses for the nationalist elements of other groups, excusing them, because you say that you know some less nationalist people from the same group. Then, you grant the extension of this to say that most are not nationalist or that most will stop being so nationalist. But, I look at it from the other side. I see the nationalist and radical elements. I see them and, in the same manner you extend your perception of "niceness" onto the whole of the other group, I extend the nationalist and the violent. At base, when the chips are down, I see others in the group all becoming just as nasty as their worst nationalists. It becomes a choice, for them.

But, you propose to me that we can be peaceful. Under what conditions are you asserting this? You are the majority in your country. You have a military complex that can protect you from domestic and foreign enemies. You are still the most represented in this country. When you are the minority, do you think their nationalist elements will become even louder or more silent? Do you think the niceness you experience from them now is genuine noble kindness, when you are and have been for your whole life, in the advantaged position over them?  Any regular scumbag will be kind for the sake of not experiencing the wrath of the most powerful group in their area. If they weren't, they would quickly find themselves in the bottom end of a trash bin.

Instead, you have to observe these people when there are no costs. How do they behave when they don't experience some potential cost? Watch them quickly justify their violence with accusations of "racist" against some fellow. Watch the Trump voter pulled from his car by a group of thugs because they had the advantage and they thought they were justified. You might say that these people were clearly not bright because it's not acceptable. However, that just means you completely lack any serious empathy. The issue is not whether you think it is acceptable, but whether they believe it is.

But, perhaps, you think you would never (ever) be nationalist and you project this onto the ones you know and, subsequently, onto everyone of their group. I call that naive. If every other group were nationalist to your exclusion, you would quickly warm up to the nationalists of your kind which you assert you despise. My task is not to act as if things are or were the worst, but instead to prepare for if things were ever to become the worst. If I did any different, I would actually be lazy in fulfilling the duty of what love I have for myself and my people. It is this preparation which is the expression of my care - not of my hatred for the groups who label me "fascist" or "totalitarian" for becoming powerful and threatening to them and any potential plans they have had, or wished to have had remain open, to hurting me or my people. As a protector of my own life and the life of my children and my people, I do wish to be threatening - to all who would try to interfere with the expression and improvement of those I care about.

The varied amount of ways and limits to which someone can suffer is as varied as and limited to the amount of ways they may desire. That is: unlimited.